It’s a tricky area here: Anthropology is a Science but History is a Humanity (Scholar).
It’s a study of a small area of the world and what seems to me more like small scale political division/clan behavior. Clans can surround anything, a religion, a soccer team… it doesn’t matter what.
It was a bit preachy of a final result and even the study … it… may have been good anthropology but it didn’t seem like good scholarship/humanities.
One of the differences between science and humanities is that science will look at a specific thing. Hypothesis, evidence, conclusion, then generalize.
Scholarship in the humanities looks at complicated overlapping factors, which may INCLUDE the science but _also_ includes other possible sources of small-scale divisions.
It’s not that it’s not useful, but it struck me as an overly simplistic view of history.